Toronto Alexithymia Scale–20: Examining 18 Competing Factor Structure Solutions in a U.S. Sample and a Philippines Sample
Toronto Alexithymia Scale–20: Examining 18 Competing Factor Structure Solutions in a U.S. Sample and a Philippines Sample
复制标题
多伦多述情障碍量表 – 20：检查美国样本和菲律宾样本中的 18 个竞争因素结构解决方案
DOI：
10.1177/1073191118824030
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
D. McChargue
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Antover P. Tuliao;Alicia K. Klanecky;B. V. N. Landoy;D. McChargue
多伦多述情障碍量表-20可以说是述情障碍最常用的衡量标准。尽管许多研究已经找到了三因素解决方案，但这些发现并不是普遍的。本文对多伦多述情障碍量表-20的18个竞争性因素结构进行了检验和比较，其中包括1到4个相关的潜在因素结构、解释消极措辞项目的常用方法模型和双因素模型。虽然具有共同方法因子的双因素模型比其他17个模型具有更好的模型拟合度，但在所有模型拟合度指标中，它仍然没有达到良好模型拟合度的必要条件。问题主要源于外向型思维因素和消极措辞。事后分析表明，去掉负面词语的两因素双因素模型达到了良好模型拟合的必要条件，并且尽管存在多维因素，但仍可被视为一维测量。多组分析表明，因子负荷在美国和菲律宾的样本中是不变的。在项目截取水平上控制了不变性后，菲律宾样本的述情障碍总分高于美国样本。
The Toronto Alexithymia Scale–20 is arguably the most utilized measure of alexithymia. Although a three-factor solution has been found by numerous studies, these findings are not universal. This article examined and compared 18 competing factor structures for the Toronto Alexithymia Scale–20, which included between one and four correlated latent factor structures, common methods models that accounts for negatively worded items, and bifactor models. Although the two-factor bifactor model with a common methods factor had the better model fit compared with the other 17 models examined, it still did not achieve the requisites of a good model fit across all model fit indices. Issues stemmed primarily from the externally oriented thinking factor and the negatively worded items. Post hoc analyses indicated that a two-factor bifactor model with the negatively worded items dropped achieved the requisites of a good model fit and can be treated as a unidimensional measure despite the presence of multidimensionality. Multiple-group analysis indicated that the factor loadings were invariant across U.S. and Philippines samples. After controlling for noninvariance at the item intercept level, the Philippines sample had a higher alexithymia general score compared with the U.S. sample.
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Cleland, C;Magura, S;Kosanke, N
通讯作者：
Kosanke, N